Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You cannot prove something when a court will not look at the evidence. If the courts did fraud would have been proven easily.Yet with 4 years and all the power of the federal government, Trump couldn't prove his voter fraud claim from 2016, no less prove in court his voter fraud claim from 2020.There was massive fraud.In 2016 TRump said 3 to 5 million illegals voted... and, for 4 years Trump has been saying the upcoming election was rigged.
Are you claiming the judges never read the pleadings? The complaint, or any of the motions?The courts never looked at evidence. Why are you lying?Again in 2020, the evidence of significant fraud couldn't be found, which is what the courts said. Not that they didn't look at the evidence of small isolated incidences.
How can you listen to the same people that lied about Russia for 3 years? You are unable to think for yourself which you have made quite clear.You cannot prove something when a court will not look at the evidence. If the courts did fraud would have been proven easily.Yet with 4 years and all the power of the federal government, Trump couldn't prove his voter fraud claim from 2016, no less prove in court his voter fraud claim from 2020.There was massive fraud.In 2016 TRump said 3 to 5 million illegals voted... and, for 4 years Trump has been saying the upcoming election was rigged.
Trump had NO evidence.. Trump barely finished the 7th grade. Do you actually think he knows more than the lawyers and judges? This lardo also claimed he knows more than the doctors and epidemiologists as well as Generals and Intelligence professionals.
How could you fall for this con man? Are you stupid?
One thing you have to give Trump credit for. Is his performance as a con-man. Able to sell his version of snake oil to some of the people, all of the time.Americans sure turned out to dump him. The guy is a menace. Trump has always been a pariah.. not accepted among polite society. He's much too crude and has no clue about manners or noblesse oblige. Its not enough to be a millionaire.. One has to have these other qualities to succeed .. He glorified bad manners and stupidity with his rants against political correctness...
He thinks hearsay, speculation, rumors and suspicion constitute evidence.How could you fall for this con man? Are you stupid?
No it is not. It is a fact. The narrative is another lie. One after the other that stupid people actually believe. You are just one of them. Remember, the people in charge do not give a shit about you or this country.Are you claiming the judges never read the pleadings? The complaint, or any of the motions?The courts never looked at evidence. Why are you lying?Again in 2020, the evidence of significant fraud couldn't be found, which is what the courts said. Not that they didn't look at the evidence of small isolated incidences.
That's where Trumps lawyers put the evidence for the court to look at.
And your claim they never looked at any of the pleadings is beyond crazy.
He thinks hearsay, speculation, rumors and suspicion constitute evidence.How could you fall for this con man? Are you stupid?
He picked a clear, easily-identifiable, already-propagandized group of frustrated, aggrieved people, zeroed in like a laser, and spoke directly to them in their language non-stop.One thing you have to give Trump credit for. Is his performance as a con-man. Able to sell his version of snake oil to some of the people, all of the time.Americans sure turned out to dump him. The guy is a menace. Trump has always been a pariah.. not accepted among polite society. He's much too crude and has no clue about manners or noblesse oblige. Its not enough to be a millionaire.. One has to have these other qualities to succeed .. He glorified bad manners and stupidity with his rants against political correctness...
Here's a random thought that just rolled into my little brain:
Should an elected representative legislate according to what they perceive to be the will of their constituents, or according to what they perceive to be the best interests of their constituents? Obviously the two are not always going to be congruent.
So if you're in the House or the Senate, does winning that seat give you carte blanche to observe, analyze, formulate and advance policy that you feel is best for them, or are you obliged to base your actions on voices who contact you?
My first impulse is the former, where the representative has to be trusted to make appropriate decisions on their own. Thoughts?
Are you claiming the judges never read the pleadings? The complaint, or any of the motions?
That's where Trumps lawyers put the evidence for the court to look at.
And your claim they never looked at any of the pleadings is beyond crazy.
Do you have proof of judges, even the one's that Trump appointed, did not read the pleadings in the cases?No it is not. It is a fact. The narrative is another lie. One after the other that stupid people actually believe. You are just one of them. Remember, the people in charge do not give a shit about you or this country.
The same thing biden and the lying lib media did to youHe picked a clear, easily-identifiable, already-propagandized group of frustrated, aggrieved people, zeroed in like a laser, and spoke directly to them in their language non-stop.
That is nice but it does not mean shit because who filled in those blanks did not do their duty. Anything else? Because nothing will change the obvious denial and complicity in the huge lie (the real Big Lie) that there was no fraud.Are you claiming the judges never read the pleadings? The complaint, or any of the motions?
That's where Trumps lawyers put the evidence for the court to look at.
And your claim they never looked at any of the pleadings is beyond crazy.
Do you have proof of judges, even the one's that Trump appointed, did not read the pleadings in the cases?No it is not. It is a fact. The narrative is another lie. One after the other that stupid people actually believe. You are just one of them. Remember, the people in charge do not give a shit about you or this country.
If you have such evidence, that should be presented to those overseeing the courts, and those judges removed from the bench for failing to read the pleadings, in violation of their oath of office.
“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Agreed. That to me is a function of a system that is out of whack. The more the parties are controlled by their nutter bases, the more reactionaries we're going to get.Here's a random thought that just rolled into my little brain:
Should an elected representative legislate according to what they perceive to be the will of their constituents, or according to what they perceive to be the best interests of their constituents? Obviously the two are not always going to be congruent.
So if you're in the House or the Senate, does winning that seat give you carte blanche to observe, analyze, formulate and advance policy that you feel is best for them, or are you obliged to base your actions on voices who contact you?
My first impulse is the former, where the representative has to be trusted to make appropriate decisions on their own. Thoughts?
It's an interesting juxtaposition. The will of the people isn't necessarily what's in the best interest of the people because the people are largely stupid, ignorant, and self serving. However, what makes an elected representative any wiser than the public at large to determine what's in their best interest? Look at some of the people who get elected:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Marjorie Taylor-Green
Hank Johnson
Maxine Waters
Mazie Hirono
Steve King
Lauren Bobert
And I could go on and on. I can't say that I'm all that confident in this crop of clowns determining what's in my best interest.
He thinks hearsay, speculation, rumors and suspicion constitute evidence.
Maybe you should ask, why didn't Trumps lawyers present all that evidence to the court?This is for aggregating publicly available items of evidence that would be admissible in court, not general election news stories or updates.
You left out Donald J. Trump.And I could go on and on. I can't say that I'm all that confident in this crop of clowns determining what's in my best interest.
It can only be a thought exercise to begin with, since the top priorities of our elected representatives are (1) pleasing the base, (2) re-election and (3) fundraising, in no particular order. What's best for the country is down the list.Another way to phrase the OPs question is do we elect Representatives to lead or to follow?
The will of the people argument is one of going with the stream of thought prevalent at the time.
The best interest of the people argument is one of shaping public opinion rather than following it.
The purpose of leadership is to change public opinion when needed. History has shown that good leadership can change opinions for the better.
I don’t discount the will of the people argument, especially as it comes to elections, but once that representative is in office the best interests of the nation should be a priority, particularly when it is clear what is in the national interests.
However, in all democracies, ultimately, it comes down to the people you elect having the discretion and intelligence to discern what is in the National interest.
If you have such evidence, that should be presented to those overseeing the courts, and those judges removed from the bench for failing to read the pleadings, in violation of their oath of office.
As I said. If you have evidence they didn't do their duty, present it to those that oversee the courts, and have those judges removed.That is nice but it does not mean shit because who filled in those blanks did not do their duty. Anything else? Because nothing will change the obvious denial and complicity in the huge lie (the real Big Lie) that there was no fraud.
And insteead they should be controlled by you?The more the parties are controlled by their nutter bases, the more reactionaries we're going to get.
A corrupt system is not going to fix itself.If you have such evidence, that should be presented to those overseeing the courts, and those judges removed from the bench for failing to read the pleadings, in violation of their oath of office.As I said. If you have evidence they didn't do their duty, present it to those that oversee the courts, and have those judges removed.That is nice but it does not mean shit because who filled in those blanks did not do their duty. Anything else? Because nothing will change the obvious denial and complicity in the huge lie (the real Big Lie) that there was no fraud.
What's best for the country is subjective and only an opinion. The Constitution determines what's best for the country, elected representatives swear to uphold it, not ignore it.
